IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 26 September 2011 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A691921F8C86 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92Uf549PUNMI for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFD921F8C77 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKToCWwmQ+5OWXHvFCmSRQLrafKTUfK43C@postini.com; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:14:12 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822F81B846F for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CCE6190052; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:14:10 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: maximilien mouton <maximilien.mouton@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
Thread-Index: AcxxClosDL9zuhm1Q+CTqXShqzwWxAAw84cAAAfxtgAABv0IAAARg+mAAAbg3wAAAWjoAAAA9R+AAAEFqoAAAF3hgAAAk6wAAAAgVoACeWPhgAANsJoA
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:14:10 +0000
Message-ID: <303B5E8F-2AF8-4DB5-A51D-5DE07925B58C@nominum.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com> <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com> <4E6EAFC2.5060906@gmail.com> <4E6EDEA8.3080108@gmail.com> <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com> <4E6F825C.3080303@gmail.com> <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@nominum.com> <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com> <7061CEB8-8084-41D5-B31E-9F8E3B6C7091@nominum.com> <4E6F9B91.7010503@gmail.com> <B987CA14-569C-428C-8D8A-C97A0E42EF48@nominum.com> <4E6FA049.1040309@viagenie.ca> <4E803AE5.2000203@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E803AE5.2000203@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.89.227.148]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_303B5E8F2AF84DB5A51D5DE07925B58Cnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:11:29 -0000

On Sep 26, 2011, at 4:42 AM, maximilien mouton wrote:
Imagine a realistic network in which in the same prefix is, a limited
resource device not able to carry more than a default route (see
previous discussion with Alex),

We hear a lot about fictitious devices that have bizarre limitations like this.   The reason, for instance, that DHCP only allows 576 byte packets by default was a theory that there might be some device in the network that wouldn't have buffer space for a larger packet.

I've never actually seen such a device in the wild, and am skeptical that any such device is likely to exist in the future.   If it's got enough memory to run DHCP, it's got enough memory to extract the default route from an option carrying a selection of routes, and it almost certainly also has enough memory to keep a full routing table anyway.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email